Mitt Rocks!

Friday, February 11, 2011

Whether it's the Toyota Prius, or Napolean Dynamite's favorite animal, the Liger (they do exist, BTW) we are all becoming more familiar with hybrids.

But not all hybrids are destined for success. While combining peanut butter with chocolate may be a "Reese's dream come true", trying to combine other things, like vegetarianism with Tony Roma's all-you-can-eat ribs may not work as well.

So it is with healthcare. We have two approaches to healthcare: 1) a government run system, or 2) a private or free market system. The United States is trying to run a hybrid of the two.

Yet, the two systems cannot be successfully hybridized, at least not for long. There are several reasons why this unholy alliance is destined to fail. I would like to point just a few of the very obvious contradictions.

Great Expectations

The patients in a free market healthcare system expect to pay for the care they receive. Like any product, the more they pay, the better care they get. The patients may shop around, they may bargain, but in the end, they expect to have to pay their own hard-earned money for the services they receive from the care-giver. There may be a disparity in the level of care, but the patients take comfort in fact that the care they received was equal to the money they paid. Maybe they pride themselves in getting a "good deal", but they still are expecting to pay in the end. If fees are perceived to be too high, they go elsewhere, unless they are convinced that the care is just that good.

The patients of a government-run system expect not to pay for healthcare. They have paid taxes, Social security, or Medicare taxes all their lives, so they expect not to pay any more into it. Money is taken from their paychecks, and so they expect the care to be free.

The expectations of the two patients are not aligned.

Rationing of Care

Healthcare must be rationed. The GDP of the United States is 14 Trillion or so. It's obvious that all 14 Trillion could not be spent on healthcare. So it has to be rationed, or limited in it's expenditures to some extent.

In a free market system, people ration their own care. They decide for themselves just how much to spend on doctors bills. If an aging woman wants to live to see the 2020 Olympics, she can elect to pay for the best care available even if that means leaving no inheritance to her posterity. And if that is her choice, so be it. Another person may try to live as healthy as possible, to minimize doctor's bills. Some may elect to go down in a "blaze of glory" eating as much fried foods and exercising as little as possible, knowing full well that they will have to pay for any vascular problems that lifestyle may imply.

Imagine a family that had to choose between paying for cancer treatment for their 80 year old grandmother, or an organ transplant for a ten-year old boy. In a free market, the family will choose for themselves which to spend the money on. The family may elect to sell some assets to pay for both. But the decision rests with the family. They will ration their own care according to their desires and needs.

A government run system would also have to ration care. Sarah Palin's so-called "death panels" are a necessity in a government run system. Governments, like families, do not have unlimited funds. The State will have to make the terrible decision of who lives and who dies, or who gets treatment and who is put on a wait-list. It may seem like governments have a lot of money, but when you make the government responsible for 300 million people, the money has to be divvied out somehow. Most people will want the care to be equal for all. It takes great faith to trust that the government will be perfectly equitable to all her citizens.

Further, an equal disbursement of healthcare would mean that no matter what you did FOR society, you will get an equal take FROM society. Is that really the definition of equality?

Make no mistake, healthcare is a commodity that must be rationed. The question is: Who will be making those decisions?

A hybrid system cannot reconcile this conflict.

The Grass is Greener

In a hybrid system, the advantages of each system are on display. Each will want the advantage of the other. The people getting socialized healthcare will envy the level of care offered in the private clinics. The people paying high fees in the private sector will envy those who are getting free care. In a hybridized system, taxes pay for those on government care. Use a private clinic and you are not taking advantage of what you paid into. It's like sending your kids to a private school. The grass will seem greener on the other side of the hill. Politicians will work to bend rules and regulations to appease both parties. Arguments that tug at the heart will be presented: "We need first-class care for our veterans", or "Our nation's kids deserve the best". The people receiving Medicare will want to be seen in private clinics and "keep their own doctor". The Mayo clinic is a great place for care, but it costs a lot of money to have a "team of doctors" on your case.

A hybrid system will create an environment where people will want the best of both worlds, leaving everybody pretty disappointed.

How have we managed this hybrid for so long?

America is trying to run a hybrid system. Ever since the inception of Medicare and Medicaid, we have been trying to have both systems. What has kept it alive? Our growing national debt. Politicians have "kicked the can" down the street and no one has really dealt with it. Obama is trying his best to "deal with it", but unfortunately he is trying to push it the way of the government run. He is stacking the cards against the free market and putting 2000 pages of legislation that will eventually drive us away from the private.

Eventually, our nation will have to choose one system or the other. They both can't coexist for long. I hope we choose the free market. It has the potential to provide better care for everybody. Innovators will bring better care for less money. The care will still have to be rationed, but you'll get better bang for your buck if we let people make a profit to invent and innovate new cures and new technogies. The possibilities are endless with capitalism. Socialism offers, at best, equality of care, but not much hope for advancement.

What was Romneycare?

Romney was governor of a State which had the hybridization healthcare already in place. But there were people showing up to the emergency rooms uninsured and basically taking advantage of those who were insured. He found that 95% of Massachusetts' residents were already insured. So what he did was push those 5% to get insurance (private insurance). If you were to look at it like a Toyota Prius, he took a hybrid and put better wheels on it, and made the gas engine run more efficiently. Romney made it run a little more like a gasoline engine. He wasn't in a position to take a sledgehammer to the prius and replace it with a better kind of vehicle. That kind of reform would have to come on the federal level. After all, it was the feds who created the hybrid healthcare economy. His was never the intent to expand the government run system of healthcare. Bottom line: Romney expanded the private sector of healthcare in his State, and did so with the blessing of the super-conservative Heritage Foundation. Since Romney's departure, others have tweaked MassCare a little more back to the socialized side of things. Romney can hardly be blamed for what others have done since he left.

Obama's claim to have emulated Romneycare is politically calculated to harm the primary chances of the President's biggest rival: Mitt Romney. The intent of Romneycare and Obamacare couldn't be more distinct. The intent of the former is to increase the private sector, while the intent of the latter is to increase the government's influence.

Mitt Romney is a man who believes in capitalism and the free market. It is in his DNA. Sometimes you have to deal with the hand that is dealt you. Just because he was handed a Toyota Prius, you can't fault him for wanting it to run a little better for his State. We need a pragmatic problem-solver like Mitt to reform healthcare on a National level. The current system is not sustainable. Romney will use free-market solutions to repair what's spinning out of control here in America. Frankly, don't we need someone with a little experience looking at the problem of healthcare? Obamacare can't simply be repealed, it eventually needs to be replaced with something better. Romney has looked at healthcare in depth and has a good grasp of how to tackle this growing problem.

The can has been kicked down the street for too long and it's time our country dealt with these major problems. We need to undo the FDR entitlements and return to our more pure free market ways. We need to push back against big lawsuits against doctors. We need to encourage innovation. We need to send Mitt Romney to the White House. The freedom to make decisions concerning healthcare should always rest with the people.

Monday, April 12, 2010

Let's face it. Healthcare was a problem that needed to be dealt with...and still does need to be dealt with. The costs of healthcare are increasing way beyond that of inflation. Not only is Medicare going bankrupt, but there are abuses and waste that are spiraling out of control.

Romney is just the kind of guy who could take all of the data for such an important and complicated problem and make the necessary changes. That's what he did in the private sector. He and his team would look at large businesses and analyze the data to see where there was waste or duplication. He would in essence, turn them around and make them profitable. That's also what Romney did in Massachusetts, he balanced the State's budget in a time of crisis. I believe that he can do the same for America.

The irony is that Obamacare looks a lot like Romneycare.

Or does it? One of my favorite sites, Evangelicals for Mitt, names just four of the important distinctions between the two plans:

3. Mitt created bipartisan consensus while Obama rammed his reform down our throats and against the majority opinion of the American people.

4. RomneyCare is constitutional; ObamaCare may very well prove to be an unconstitutional abuse of federal power.

These are important distinctions, but I feel there are at least two more major differences between the two plans:

5. The democrats plan is designed, in the long run, to destroy private health insurance altogether. When Romney was in office, he brought insurance companies to the table and wrote a bill that they agreed to. Romney never had designs to bring to pass Universal and government run healthcare. This is a guy who is passionate about the private sector and understands the simple truth that the private sector will always outperform the government-run. It is only years later, and in a weakened economy, that the State of Massachusetts has placed price controls and regulated the premiums that now threaten private healthcare insurance in Massachusetts. The democrats have taken over and now so-called Romneycare is morphing into Obamacare. This is a very, very important distinction.

6. Romney was not in a position to fix the major problems that exist in healthcare. If you want to understand why Romneycare and Obamacare do share some similarities, is due to the fact that as Governor, Romney had to deal with the federal mandates that already existed. Romney couldn't address Medicare or Medicaid. Those were Federally run. Romney couldn't address lawsuits against doctors and hospitals. When it came to controlling the rising costs of healthcare, Romney's hands were tied.

The President, on the other hand, had the opportunity to address rising costs by allowing competition between state lines. Obama could have included Tort reform. Obama could have reformed Medicare. Obama could have looked at Medicaid. Instead, Obama has created a trillion dollar program that does nothing to keep the prices down. If the federal government were a business, they'd be bankrupt. But the feds have the ultimate business plan: Pay up or go to jail! The people of Massachusetts obviously could discern a difference between Obamacare and Romneycare, when they elected Scott Brown!

I am convinced that if Romney had the mandate to make Federal Healthcare reform, the result would have been very different from the so-called Romneycare that exists in Massachusetts today.

It is disingenuous to peg the problems in Massachusetts on Mitt Romney. Each of have filed our 2009 taxes. We each have to budget within those parameters. Does that mean we are responsible for the US tax code? Does that mean we are each responsible for the deficits and national debt? Likewise, Romney had to operate in the environment imposed by the Feds. His was a State where 90% already had healthcare. There was a small percentage that were slipping through the cracks that he helped to get coverage, that's all. He wasn't "reforming healthcare". He didn't have the power. You really can't honestly compare the two.

The Republicans now need to tackle healthcare! We need to do more than to simply repeal the law. We need a better law of our own. We need to address the major sources of price inflation, namely, tort reform, entitlement spending, waste, and competition. We need to get a bill that will address Medicare and control the costs. Our country is going to go bankrupt and this new law only speeds that process along. We can't blame Obama solely for the problems in our budget, but the recently passed law has done nothing but fan the flames and add fuel to the fire. Government needs to be regulated and cut. Not the other way around. Romney understands this and I believe that it is a mistake for him to be judged unfairly.

I invite each of you to obtain a copy of Romney's book "No Apology". I have read the book, and frankly, couldn't put it down. In it, you will discover the real Mitt Romney and will, like me, eagerly anticipate his presidency.

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Tolerance? We have a ways to go

Americans still have a bias against Republican Mitt Romney, according to a study conducted during last year’s election. Not a political bias, but a religious one. The good news: When people understood his Mormon faith, the bias melted away.

By David E. Campbell, John C. Green and J. Quin Monson

It's now official: President Obama's honeymoon is over. And right on cue the Republicans are gearing up to run against him in 2012. Sarah Palin's book could launch her campaign, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty just went to Iowa. But the smart money is on former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney gaining his party's nomination.

His candidacy, however, faces a major obstacle that should concern all Americans: religious intolerance. Mitt Romney's membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka the Mormon church) clearly hurt him in 2008. Polls showed that anywhere from one-quarter to one-third of Americans openly said they would not vote for a Mormon candidate for president. Mormons are hardly the only religious group to face such overt hostility. Polls show that Muslims, Buddhists and people without a religion are all viewed more warily by Americans. And as America becomes more religiously diverse, we can expect still more candidates from faiths that might be unfamiliar to many Americans, or those who profess no religion at all.

The good news is that accurate information about such unpopular religious groups can help the cause of religious tolerance in America.

What we found

The importance of information is illustrated by a study we conducted during the 2008 presidential primaries and recently released. The study was an online survey experiment with a nationally representative sample of 3,000 respondents. We provided randomly selected respondents with different statements about Romney and then asked whether they would vote for him.

Some were given a boilerplate biography that did not mention religion; others were told that he has been a local leader in his church; others were told he has been a leader in the Mormon church. Still others were told, "Some people say Mormons are not Christians." By comparing reactions to these various statements, we could see how each one affected a person's willingness to vote for Romney, and also how different kinds of people responded to the statements.

The claim that Mormons are not Christians was particularly potent. Indeed, Romney tried to put this issue to rest with a much-discussed speech on religion delivered in College Station, Texas, in December 2007. In it, the presidential candidate said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance."

Despite these statements, the results of our study — conducted not long after Romney's speech — suggest that his religion was a liability. When respondents were told about the claim that Mormons are not Christians, nearly one-third said they were less likely to vote for him.

Interestingly, the claim that Mormons are not Christians had virtually no effect on those people who reported a close personal relationship with a Mormon. This news, though, is presumably small consolation for Romney's supporters. There is little they can do between now and 2012 to encourage closer friendships between Mormons and their non-Mormon neighbors.

Our results do, however, indicate that there is something Romney's supporters can do to assuage concerns about his Mormonism. People who objectively know a lot about Mormons — that is, those who scored 100% on a short quiz on facts about Mormonism — were much less likely to be bothered by the claim that Mormons are not Christians. In contrast, respondents who claimed they knew a lot about Mormons, but who actually did not, were bothered most of all by claims about Mormonism.

Information helps

In other words, our study suggests that Romney's supporters would do well to encourage those who are troubled by his faith to become better informed about Mormonism.

Such a discussion would likely help Romney: Information helps and ignorance hurts his chances. More important, it would help broaden religious tolerance in America.

Romney was not the first and will not be the last candidate to suffer from a lack of knowledge about his faith. Even in 2008, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama suffered a double dose concerning his pastor in Chicago and the false claim that he was a Muslim — delivered as though the mere possibility should disqualify him for the office.

We take no position on whether Romney is right for the Republican Party or for the White House. Similarly, we take no position for or against other Mormon politicians, such as Nevada's Harry Reid, the Democratic leader of the U.S. Senate. Or, for that matter, on the fitness of any politician — Mormon, Muslim, or Methodist.

We do take the position that the whole country will be better off if there is no "stained glass ceiling" in politics for members of any religion or no religion at all. A good way to break such a barrier is for all of us to really know the Latter-day Saints — as well as all the other kinds of "saints" among us.

David E. Campbell, John C. Green and J. Quin Monson teach political science at the University of Notre Dame, University of Akron and Brigham Young University, respectively. The views expressed are their own and do not necessarily represent those of their institutions.

Sunday, August 2, 2009

I have watched Huckabee's self-titled show on Fox News several times. I have to say, it is actually very heart-warming! I can't believe I am finding myself liking the man who was the hardest on my candidate, Mitt Romney. Just a few months ago, I hated this guy!

I think Huckabee has found his calling. He is a very likeable and heart-warming speaker. He has tremendous skill with timing and eye-contact. He seems so down to earth and presents conservative views with grace and a sense of peace. Contrast that to Glenn Beck's approach, "the sky is falling". I also like Glenn, but after watching him I feel scared. After watching Huck, I feel warm and fuzzy. And then he gets up and plays the bass-guitar for the grand finale! Tonight's show had a song "If ten percent is good enough for Jesus, why isn't it enough for Uncle Sam?". That's good stuff.

During the Republican primaries, Huckabee was the perfect anti-Romney. And Romney was the perfect anti-Huckabee. Where Romney lacked in personality, the Huckster was dripping with it. Where Huckabee lacked in intelligence, Romney answered with his dual-Harvard degree brains. Romney's religion was in the minority, while Huckabee's was in the majority. Huckabee had style while Romney had substance.

I give it as my opinion that those two, Romney and Huckabee, cancelled each other out and left McCain with the victory. Of course, there was Fred Thompson and Guiliani. But those guys didn't show up until after the first states had been decided. The momentum had been established. Huck stayed in the race just long enough to make sure McCain won. He was the Romney antidote and the best friend to the McCain campaign.

Then along came Obama who, as a candidate, had more style than McCain, Huckabee, and Romney combined. The cult of personality had arrived. McCain knew he needed style and so he threw a hail-mary and put in the unvetted and inexperienced Palin. The election became style vs. style...and Obama had boat-loads more of it. America confused the presidential race for "American Idol" and gave it to the ticket they liked the most and who "had the best story", instead of voting for the ticket that was most qualified. McCain had a hard time getting conservative passion...because he had been a "maverick". Well, conservatives held their noses (me included) and voted for McCain, but some stayed home. And a few wrote in Ralph Paul...I mean Ron Nader...and viola, we have President Obama.

I really think that Huck has found his calling. He is the perfect conservative/christain talk-show host. But he dosn't have the brains to pull-off being president with the current problems we face.

I give it as my opinion that if the economy isn't better in the next two years, America will choose substance over style. So PLEASE PLEASE, Huck, STAY ON FOXNEWS! I'll keep watching...

Saturday, July 4, 2009

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

PETA? How about PETABOA? That stands for "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals By Other Animals". The way I see it, most animal cruelty is delivered by other animals. A few years ago, (this is a true story...just ask Laura) I saw this bird in my backyard and it was being attacked by our cat. Our cat was messing with it for about an hour. The bird's wing was injured and the cat was just poking it and taunting it. All of these other birds started to swoop down and try to distract our cat, but Lucy didn't care. She went on messing with the poor bird. It was one of the saddest things I had ever watched. Eventually, upon my wife's insistence, I decided to deliver the bird out of danger and so I took a tennis racket and lifted the bird and flung it over the fence (out of the range of our cat). I'm sure that the poor bird died over there...eaten by another cat or something.

That night, as we ate our KFC, I thought to myself about how much nicer we humans are, without even trying, to the creatures that we eat. Our cat would have tortured that little bird for several hours had I not intervened.

So the other day, Obama swats this fly and actually hits it! I was proud to be an American! I can honestly say that this was one of the first things Obama has done as president that I agreed with.

And so PETA actually condemns his actions! Are you serious? Other animals are so much more cruel to other animals than we humans are. Go see the movie documentary Planet Earth, or Earth...and you will see all of these lions attacking a huge elephant. Can you imagine some lunatick human doing something like that? I mean jumping on the back of an elephant and just gnawing on it's back for an hour? The guy who tried that would be considered totally insane and cruel. But when it's a lion doing it, we just watch and do nothing about it! There's some kind of weird double-standard. How many flies are being eaten by frogs and bats as we speak? How many trillions of plankton are being slowly digested in the stomach of the humpback whales as we speak? Did you know that the female black Widow spider eats her male partner ALIVE after her eggs are fertilized? How do you think that makes the males feel?

So, PETA, if you are in the business of decreasing animal suffering, you had better start with the animal kingdom itself...otherwise you are straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel (not to be taken literally, that would be cruel...see THE NEW TESTAMENT).

Friday, April 24, 2009

A Timid Advocate of FreedomPresident Obama has failed his early foreign-policy tests.

by Mitt Romney

At last week’s Summit of the Americas, President Obama acquiesced to a 50-minute attack on America as terroristic, expansionist, and interventionist from Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega. His response to Ortega’s denunciation of our effort to free Cuba from Castro’s dictatorship was that he shouldn’t be blamed “for things that happened when I was three months old.” Blamed? Hundreds of men, including Americans, bravely fought and died for Cuba’s freedom, heeding the call from newly elected president John F. Kennedy. But last week, even as American soldiers sacrificed blood in Afghanistan and Iraq to defend liberty, President Obama shrank from defending liberty here in the Americas.

In his first press interview as president, he confessed to Arabic television that America had “dictated” to other nations. No, Mr. President, America has fought to free other nations from dictators. And in Strasbourg, the president further claimed that America has “showed arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” London’s Daily Telegraph observed that President Obama “went further than any United States president in history in criticizing his own country’s action while standing on foreign soil.” Of course, it was not just the Daily Telegraph that was listening: People around the world who yearn for freedom, who count on America’s resolve and support, heard him as well. He was heard in China, in Tibet, in Sudan, in Burma, and, yes, in Cuba.

The words spoken by the leader of the free world can expand the frontiers of freedom or shrink them. When Ronald Reagan called on Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” a surge of confidence rose that would ultimately breach the bounds of the evil empire. It was the same confidence that had been ignited decades earlier when John F. Kennedy declared to a people surrounded by Communism that they were not alone. “We are all Berliners,” he said, because “freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s confident commitment, spoken as he led us into the war that would free millions in Europe, inspired not only Americans but freedom fighters around the globe: “The American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.” Such words of solidarity, of confidence, and of unwavering conviction that America is indeed “the last best hope on earth” are what freedom’s friends would have expected to hear from our president when our nation was slandered. Instead he offered silence, smiles, and a handshake.

Even more troubling than what he has or has not said is what he has not done. Kim Jong Il launched a long-range missile on the very day President Obama addressed the world about the peril of nuclear proliferation. As one of the world’s most oppressive and tyrannical regimes is on the brink of securing the “game changing” capability to reach American shores with a nuclear weapon, the president shrinks from action: no seizure of North Korean funds, no severance of banking access, no blockade.

Not to be outdone by Kim Jong Il, President Ahmadinejad announced that his nation has successfully mastered every step necessary to enrich uranium, violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it has signed. So, like North Korea, Iran will have changed the world’s equation for peace and security: It will be capable of devastating Europe and America, and of annihilating Israel. And as with North Korea, the Obama administration chooses inaction — no new severe sanctions, no hint of military options. Ahmadinejad can act with confidence that the forceful options once on our proverbial table have been shelved.

Vice President Biden was right that the new president would be tested early in his administration. What the world learned was not good news for freedom and democracy. The leader of the free world has been a timid advocate of freedom at best. And bold action to blunt the advances of tyrants has been wholly lacking. We are still very early in the Obama years — the president will have ample opportunity to defend America and freedom, and to deter nuclear brinkmanship. I am hoping for change.

— Mitt Romney, formerly the governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

This morning I read a headline on CNN.com that made me shudder: "US Plan to Buy Toxic Assets Near"

Follow me here. If an asset is toxic for a bank, it means that the bank made a decision to make a bad loan, and is now suffering the consequences of that decision by losing money.

But now the federal government comes in and says, "Oh no! You're having to deal with the consequences of your bad decision. It must be so hard for you, and it's hard on the rest of us too. So listen to us. We have a plan. We're going to pretend that you never made a bad decision. We're going to take away all the consequences so you don't have to feel any more pain. What we're going to do is force someone else to take on your pain, an innocent person who had nothing to do with your bad decisions. Now the innocents will have to deal with the consequences of your decision. You, on the other hand, are totally off the hook. Now just go back to being who you were before, and, by the way, don't worry. If you ever make a bad decision again, we'll be here for you.

Now the absurdity of the above situation ought to be obvious. It's exactly the same message we send when we legalize the killing of unborn children. We're essentially teaching people that the consequences of their actions don't matter, that they can do whatever the heck they want and not accept the consequences of their actions (90% of abortions are performed as a form of birth control; look it up).

Just as innocent children are the victims of abortion, the innocent American taxpayer is the victim of these absurd government bailouts. If the US government were a parent, they might be voted "worst parent ever." After all, what good parent would allow their children to escape the consequences of their bad decisions? It's just plain dumb. When you remove the negative consequences of a bad decision, the person is much more likely to keep making the same bad decisions over and over again.

This much ought to be obvious. But apparently the Obama administration doesn't get it, and the Bush administration didn't get it either. Since when has the free market functioned properly with heavy government intervention? The answer is...never. The only role the government ought to play in a free market is to ensure ethical behavior and create policies that keep government as far away as possible from business, so that the market can operate with as few restrictions as possible. It's that kind of thinking that allowed America to become the world's most powerful country in a ridiculously short amount of time, and it's that kind of thinking that will help get us out of the financial swamp that is now drowning us.

But the Obama administration seems hellbent on making sure we stay in this swamp. With each government bailout, with each company that is "rescued", the taxpayers of America are becoming the shareholders in some of the worst investments in history. I'll ask you, would you, voluntarily, buy stock in AIG right now? General Motors? Citigroup? But wait, YOU ARE buying stock in these companies. The Obama administration is FORCING you. You don't have a choice. You ARE a shareholder in these companies, and there's nothing you can do about it.

These bailouts, which the government is calling "public-private partnerships," are not partnerships at all. Last I knew, a good partnership was something into which both parties voluntarily entered for mutual benefit. Yet I see no benefit at all to the taxpayer in this "partnership", and make no mistake: nothing about this is voluntary. All we get is a bigger tax bill and horrible investment losses. On the other hand, the companies that caused these problems are making off like bandits. The government is telling them that it's okay for them to unload their toxic assets on the citizens, and is basically forcing us to take the blame for the banks' bad decisions. Now call me crazy, but that's no partnership.

But wait, aren't I missing the point here? Once our government forces us taxpayers to buy stock in these poorly-run companies, the companies will surely be in better health, right, and the country back on better financial footing? Not so fast. Who is to say these companies won't continue making the same bad decisions? You've heard the saying, "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior." Well believe it. When individuals or organizations don't face consequences for their bad decisions, the likelihood of them repeating the same mistakes is very high.

So here the government is, anointing themselves saviors of the economy, the knights in shining armor, when in fact all they have done is encourage the offending companies to keep up with business as usual. Just like the irresponsible individuals who continue to have unprotected sex, knowing they can easily get a government-approved abortion the next day, these poorly-managed companies will keep on making poor management decisions, knowing full well that big brother government stands ready and willing to bail them out, again.

Saturday, February 28, 2009

CNN.com is running on its homepage that CPAC has selected Mitt Romney as its top choice for the 2012 Republication Presidential Nomination. This is the third straight year CPAC has selected Romney as its choice for the nomination. CPAC is often seen as a good barometer of conservative intellectual opinion. To read the full article click on the following link: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/28/cpac/index.html

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

During the election, Barack Obama promised not only to make a great effort to solicit opposing opinions, but he promised that he would not push any non-emergency legislation through Congress without first giving the general public a full five days to review it and provide feedback. In ramming this one-party stimulus bill through Congress in about two days (a bill that happens to be the biggest spending bill in US history), he broke both promises in a major way.

If this bill were something minor it wouldn't be a concern. But we're talking about a bill that will saddle American taxpayers with debt for generations to come. Most Americans, and even the politicians who voted for the bill, did not even have time to read it. To me that's just inexusable. This is to mention nothing about the fact that Obama did not help establish clear criterion for what could qualify an expenditure as one that would truly stimulate the economy (remember how the first version of the bill requested millions for Head Start and other liberal wish list items that had nothing to do with stimulating the economy?).

Bottom line: Obama did not show good leadership in the way he managed this bill, and he broke important promises he made during the election. I like Obama. I want him to succeed. But in his first big test he failed miserably.

Friday, February 6, 2009

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Today we will all witness a historic day in America: the swearing in of Barack Obama, America's first black president. But today is historic for more reasons than that. For the first time in decades a new president will take the oath of office at a time when we are not only at war, but also in dire financial straits.

I have been a frequent critic of the liberal agenda, the Democratic party, and occasionally Barack Obama himself. However, as Obama assumes the presidency today, I call on Americans everywhere to close ranks and unite behind him. Now more than ever is a time to put aside partisan bickering and ideological differences. Our country faces tremendous challenges in restoring our weak economy, cutting the deficit, securing Iraq, and healing our wounded relationships with other countries.

Barack Obama cannot do this alone. He will need the help of all Americans: Republicans and Democrats, liberal and conservative, white and black, men and women. America, this is a time for us to stand together and focus our energies on solving the problems common to us all.

Although I strongly supported the GOP candidates in the primaries and the general election, I have always been impressed with much of what Barack Obama has to offer. As he is mostly untested at this point in his career, it is difficult to know what we can expect from him. However, I want him to succeed, and I want him to succeed fantastically. As Obama himself said after clinching the election, he is now everyone's president. So let us now throw our support to President Obama. Pray for him. Support him in our words. Support him in our deeds. Because he's going to need our help.

Barack Obama does indeed have a special aura about him. He seems to have the potential of a great, perhaps magnificent, leader. He is highly intelligent, sensitive to viewpoints that differ from his own, well-spoken, even-tempered, pragmatic, a solid family man, a person of strong character, and a hard worker. I pray to God that these traits which many of us perceive in him are in fact representative of who he really is, and that they will play a major part in how he governs these great United States of America. Obama is not now a great leader. He has not proven anything yet. But I, and I think most people, truly want him to become a great leader. God knows we need one right now.

Americans close ranks. Unite behind President Obama. Unite together to help him solve the serious problems we face. And if we disagree with him at times, let it be as part of the loyal opposition. We can disagree with some of his positions while still supporting and respecting him in his role as the president of our great country. In these perilous times, the need to support our leaders is greater than ever. It is patriotic to express divergent opinions, and we should continue to do so, but we must go forward with an eye focused on supporting those who are trying their hardest to do what they believe is in the best interests of the American people. Even if our support is qualified, it will go a long way toward uniting this country and giving President Obama the moral authority he needs to lead us out of these difficult times.

Friday, January 9, 2009

Now that the election is over, it is time to weigh-in on Governor Palin. There is no question that the media was not kind to her during the election. Part of it was due to the fact that she had not been vetted. Sarah had not run in the primary election and had little National exposure or experience.

I must admit that I had genuine enthusiasm for having her on the Republican ticket last year. She brought a lot of excitement to the ticket. Yet, now that I have had time to think about it, it was the fact that Palin could win that had me most excited, not what she would do with that winning. All we knew was that she was good-looking, wholesome, a family woman, and who was a rising star. And she still is all of those things, and I'm glad to have her on our side. I feel that McCain did not capitalize on having her be the spokesperson for energy independence. This was one area in which she was a bit muzzled and probably due to the fact that McCain wasn't totally committed to the cause.

On the downside, she did not bring very many new ideas to the party. She was not a champion of a cause that aroused much passion. She was a wonderful messenger, who never really got the message. We can blame McCain for much of that, but she had little to stand on her own.

But, when all things are considered, I still believe Gov. Palin would have been better than either Biden or Obama as President or VP. That said, she is not the best Republican we've got to choose from. That distinction is reserved for our man Mitt. Romney has been vetted. Romney has run a National Campaign. He went from having little name recognition to almost taking the nomination his first try (Something even Reagan could not do). And now that the election is over, many Republicans are lamenting giving the nomination to McCain instead of Romney.

And so, going forward it should be clear that for the Republicans, and for conservatives, Romney is the Standard-bearer, not Palin.

Saturday, January 3, 2009

by David AlvordIn a few days we will say Goodbye to President Bush. His presidency will probably be remembered for the Iraq war. Obama's decision to extend the service of Robert Gates is encouraging to me and is a signal that America won't be rushing out of Iraq anytime soon. This must be very frustrating to the anti-war left.

When all things are considered, President Bush delivered on what he campaigned for. He promised to be a "compassionate conservative". When we conservatives first heard the word "compassionate", we worried that Bush was referring to a compassionate government. We worried because, as conservatives, the only compassion we want from the government is to be left alone. Had Bush not heard Reagan say "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"? Probably not.

I hope I speak for most conservatives when I say that we are for human compassion. We simply believe that families, churches, and communities are better at taking care of the poor than the government is. We believe that if the money is left in our hands, we will be more responsible with that money than the government will be. When a family gives financial support to one of it's own, there is accountability involved. The family knows if any individual is abusing the money and will make adjustments accordingly. The family will also encourage eventual self-reliance. Does anyone really think that a social worker knows as much (or cares as much) as the family does?

There may be some reading this who worry that there are some individuals who may not belong to a family who can offer any assistance. This is where churches, charities, and communities can step in. Ironically, one of the reasons families may not be able to take care of their own is due to the high tax rate we currently have. I believe that if you let Americans keep more of their own money, families will be empowered to take care of their own. And, the American people will be much more judicious with that allocation than any government agency can be.

When families have the money, it encourages a society to higher moral standards. For example, imagine a young college student who is considering experimenting with drugs and who is also considering getting body piercing, and tattoos. If Mom and Dad are paying for college, or helping etc, there will be the immediate thought that they may cut him off from that funding if he/she does not live up to the standards of the family. But if Uncle Sam/Uncle Obama is paying for school there will no immediate consequences. In fact, that college student will hit "decline"on his cell phone when Mom calls. After all, who needs Mom and Dad when the government is paying for things? What about the consequences of drugs and tattoos? Governments can run ads on TV warning of the consequences of drug abuse to a young person's body...but we are talking about people who feel pretty immortal. And the consideration of being able to earn a living? Won't those tattoos and piercings put a young person at a disadvantage? No worries...the government will be there for the young person if they hit "rock bottom". They won't have to go to Mom and Dad and hear their lectures, take out their tongue rings and get a job. No.... Pell grants, food stamps, public housing will all be there for them if they really screw up. The result? A decline in the character and morals of the society.

The Parable of the Prodigal Son. In the Parable, a son departs from moral living and spends his birthright on riotous living. When he comes to himself, he returns to his father who compassionately receives him. One of the essential elements of the parable is that the Son hit bottom. There was no government program to bail him out. He basically had no choice but to return and repent. The prodigal had to return to moral living in his father's house. The son is better off in his father's house than if he had continued in riotous living while being supported by some unfeeling sponsor. The father had the means to kill the fatted calf and put a ring on his son's finger because he was not overtaxed. The whole story doesn't work out if we get the wealth redistribution Obama is talking about.

I heard Obama say that if one of his daughters makes a mistake (gets pregnant), he doesn't want her to be "punished" with a child...therefore abortion should be an option. First of all, children aren't a punishment. And at the heart of all of this, is the notion that there should be no punishment for wrongdoing. When you try to take away the consequences of bad behavior, you are, in turn, likely to increase the opportunity for people to behave badly.

Conservatism offers a better way. Let the people keep their money. Empower families to take care of their own. Churches and communities can assist those who are disabled, the Elderly, or those who have made poor choices. There will be accountability when help is given.

Conservatism allows us to be compassionate. Our man Mitt understands this principle. It is my prayer that Obama will see it too.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Glenn Beck asks Romney to explain the financial crisis and the government bailout proposal. Read the entire transcript to see why Mitt Romney would have been the ideal President for us in these financially difficult times. We support Barack Obama wholeheartedly as our new President. But anyone who thinks Obama could speak as fluently about the economy as Romney is smoking something way too strong:

GLENN BECK: Explain a little bit of what happened last Wednesday [the bank closures and government seizures] in layman's terms. I don't know if America really has a handle on, we were talking about shutting the country off because of nobody was making loans to each other. Nobody trusts each other anymore.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, the challenge all started with exuberance on the part of Republicans and Democrats to give mortgages to people who really didn't have the capacity to pay back the money. Everybody hoped they would but, you know, it was just irrational exuberance as Greenspan used to call it and so all these mortgages were handed out and then the banks, investment banks and other institutions held onto these mortgages expecting to get paid back and when the inevitable happened, when it was clear that people couldn't pay it back and started defaulting, we recognized that these banks and investment banks didn't have as much money as they thought they had and therefore they had to stop lending to new people because they didn't have money to lend. And when you start seeing people having to stop lending, well, then you mean folks can't buy cars, the kids can't get loans for school, that people can't buy homes and you could slam the whole economy shut. And it was that that the Federal Reserve feared and that's why they are proposing such dramatic action....

Friday, August 29, 2008

This is a high risk, high reward VP pick. It could be a brilliant move by McCain, or it could doom his candidacy since Palin is not vetted on the national stage. We would have strongly preferred Mitt Romney. But Governor Palin is a capable woman. We hope her graceful presence on the ticket is enough to push McCain over the top.

Romney is an extremely capable man and will certainly land on his feet. We think we can expect to see Mitt run for president again in 2012 or 2016.

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

If you are visiting this website, then you must assume that we want Mitt for McCain's VP pick because he'd make a great President. That's a given. But I believe that there are three ways that Romney would benefit McCain's bid for the White House.

Reason #1: Michigan. With Romney on the ticket, McCain would see a blue state turn red. Can you name any other potential VP that would deliver a traditionally democratic State? Sure, there are those who argue that Gov. Crist of Florida could deliver his swing state, but in reality McCain might be able to get that one without any help. But Romney knows how to speak to the people of Michigan and has a plan to save the car industry of America. McCain can't do it without Romney in Michigan.

Reason #2: The economy. Banks are closing. Stocks are plummeting. Gas costs four and five dollars a gallon. China is on the move. America is down but not out. McCain's weak spot is on the economy. Turnaround expert Mitt Romney is strong on the economy. You put Romney with McCain and you have an extremely strong ticket. Foreign policy and Washington experience from McCain and real-world outside of Washington experience from Romney. If they worked together, they could accomplish much. And none too soon. America needs the best she's got if we're going to fix the problems that we are currently facing. Who better than Romney to strengthen McCain's economic policy-making? Huckabee? (HINT: scholarships for illegals won't bring the price of gas down)

Reason #3: The Western United States. Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Nevada, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, California and others would be electrified by having Romney on the ticket. There would be passion...and McCain needs passionate supporters. Several Ron Paul supporters have mentioned that Romney would be their second choice. McCain needs an energized base and Romney would deliver that needed energy.

No other choice can deliver so many goods to McCain as Mitt Romney. The two compliment each other well and seem to be strong where the other is weak. Besides, who else can we trust to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

Friday, July 4, 2008

It's disheartening, even despicable, that some evangelical extremists are threatening to boycott the election if McCain picks "That Mormon" Mitt Romney as his running mate. I've spent a good portion of this election season browsing political news sites, blogs, and online big-city newspapers. In each of them I've noticed a disturbing trend. The trend goes something like this: if the original news article or blog post makes any mention of Mitt Romney, the ultra-conservative evangelicals come out en masse, posting comment after comment that all have the same theme: Mr. McCain, if you dare choose a Mormon as your running mate, you can expect us evangelicals to sit home on election day--and you'll lose the presidency because of it!

Now folks, let's put this in perspective. Imagine if a large voting bloc in the Democratic party (Jews for instance) were to threaten the Democratic nominee with taunts that they would sit home on election day if that nominee picked a Muslim as his or her running mate. See where where I'm going with this?

These evangelical extremists are trying to blackmail McCain, attempting to use their power as a voting bloc to force McCain to acquiese to their hateful anti-Mormon views.

Now is there anything more un-American than this? No folks, there isn't. This type of perverted ideology is exactly the opposite of the ideals on which America was founded. This ignorant, mean-spirited behavior is wrong. It is immoral. And it is most definitely behavior unbecoming of Christians. No...Jesus would not hate Mormons.

I hope that those in the mainstream media will be responsible enough to denounce this problematic trend among ultra-conservative evangelicals. However I doubt it will happen, because the mainstream media is dominated by intellectual elites, many of whom also seem to enjoy thumbing their noses at Mormons.

And so Mormons are forced to deal with this silliness. God grant them the strength to respond in love.

Monday, June 2, 2008

It must've been hard for Mitt to swallow his pride and back the man who, only months earlier, called him a flip-flopper. It must have taken a great deal of humility for Romney to back McCain after he drummed up that fake story about Mitt not supporting the surge. Perhaps the hardest blow to Romney was when McCain won the nomination, not by being the conservative, but rather by being the moderate. The conservatives: Romney, Thompson, and Huckabee, all split their votes (Romney having won most of them). The split of the conservative votes left McCain as the last man standing but hardly the man who most Republicans wanted. It must have been hard...

But Romney has come out for McCain...and it is time that we follow his example. We back McCain not for the man, but for the principles and for how he'd govern.

Why did Romney back McCain? The cynical answer would be that Romney wants to be Veep. Perhaps this isn't necessarily a bad idea. After all, many question whether McCain, if elected, will seek a second term. Romney would be the next in line. Also, if Romney truly believes that conservative principles are what America needs, he would want to be next to the man who holds the nation's highest office. Romney must realize that a conservative Vice President could offer good counsel to the POTUS.

But to back McCain, Romney, and the rest of us, will have to ignore some deficiencies in our candidate. We will have to ignore McCain's global warming pitches. We will have to forgive him for screwing up campaign finance. We'll have to get over all the times he has been a thorn in the side of conservative lawmakers. And we'll have to forget how he treated our candidate of choice.

Why?

When in comes to taxes, abortion, gay marriage, guns, and health care, would we not have a better chance with a McCain presidency than with an Obama presidency?

The appointing of court justices are another big reason to support McCain. Between Obama and McCain, who would you guess would appoint the more conservative judge? And the President is not limited the appointment of court justices, he also appoints innumerable government positions. Would not our flawed candidate do better than Obama?

Romney's reason for supporting McCain is simple: we are at war. Whether or not you think that we should have gotten into Iraq, you should agree that we would be better off with a free Iraq than with an Al Quaeda-run Iraq. McCain has staked his whole political career on Iraq. You have to admire him for that. Iraq is a terrible problem! Any person who wants to take on that war deserves our respect. Can you imagine someone inheriting the civil war from Lincoln? Who would want that job? Yet, John McCain is not only willing to step up to the plate, he is also willing to finish the job the right way.

I urge all readers to carefully consider supporting John McCain for our nation's highest office...if our man Mitt can do it, so can we.

Saturday, May 31, 2008

Click here to watch BarackObama, the liberals' great "prophet", as he forgets how many states are in the US. Then click here to watch a video where at a recent Memorial Day service Obama claims to see dead people!

Why is it that every time a conservative commits a blunder it's played in the news over and over again until it becomes pop fiction lore (think: Dan Quail, potatoe).

But when a left wing liberal makes a similar mistake, for some strange reason it is buried by the media, and you never hear about it.

Do I see a double standard here? Hmmm... You can bet that if John McCain or Mitt Romney had made either of these statements it would be plastered all over the news networks.

Ladies and gentleman, witness the clear political bias of our "grand" US media institutions. Nothing, no nothing, that will hurt their left wing political agenda will ever appear in the mainstream media--even when it's really funny.

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

In response to my last article about Sen. Obama, some comments that were posted may have mistakenly assumed that I found everything that Obama said to be wrong...but rather, I was really just pointing out that he was wrongly defending his pastor.

But his idiotic pastor is still running his mouth and now Obama is ready to throw him under the bus. Why didn't you just do that in the first place, Senator?

If the junior senator from Illinois is actually elected to our nation's highest office, all we can hope for is that the Republicans have some strong leadership that can steer the ship from afar. Senator Obama gave an inspiring speech about hope, but with a very limited voting record, all we can do is hope that his presidency would have a leadership vacuum, like that of President Clinton, and that the Republicans can once again fill that void.

OR

McCain can pick Romney as his running mate and restore conservative confidence in the coming election. I think the only way I will feel any sense of security in the coming election is to have Romney on the ticket.

I would rather have more than "hope" that Obama isn't an elitist. I would rather not have to "hope" Obama doesn't agree with his wacko pastor. I need more than "hope" to say that Obama's pulling out of Iraq won't cause genocide and eventually a large regional conflict. Can I "hope" that a man whose middle name is Hussein will prosecute the war on terror effectively?

No, it is with more than hope that I want to vote this fall. I say we let Obama serve a few more terms in the Senate to see what kind of man he is, and just how he would govern. I want to vote with confidence for a McCain / Romney ticket. John, please make it so.

Friday, April 4, 2008

As if the anti-Mormon rhetoric from the extreme Christian right didn't hurt enough people during the primary season, it looks like they're at it again--this time trying to convince McCain that he should not pick Mitt as VP.

Several right wing Christian activists and prominent Mike Huckabee backers have published a full page anti-Mitt ad that will appear in cities McCain will be visiting in the near future. Among other things, this ad alleges (falsely) that Mitt is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. It concludes by threatening McCain, stating dramatically that "Willard Mitt Romney is a deal breaker."

Now it's one thing to criticize a person's positions. But it's entirely something else when that criticism is not true. Every single allegation in their ad is refuted by credible news sources. Also, many people in this group have in the past been guilty of unfairly criticizing Mitt's religion and personal character. This bigotry has been cloaked, of course, in the name of the fight for "conservative social values." Such agenda-driven bias makes the petition even more laughable--yet another hipocritical charade of Huckabee and his ilk.

The statement is posted online and contains a petition which supposedly will be sent to John McCain. I encourage Romney supporters everywhere to sign this petition using comments that expose this underhanded effort for what it is. To view the full text of the ad and to sign the petition click here.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Obama spent his entire speech making excuses for his pastor! It was pathetic. He added nothing to the national conversation about race or religion. His speech will never be cited or quoted. It just wasn't inspiring!

Here is a particularly uninspiring quote:

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

Yeah...not so much Obama. I haven't heard anything from my church leaders with which I disagreed. I especially haven't heard anything with which I have strongly disagreed! Stop trying to assume that your weird situation is typical. The fact is, most of us go to church to hear the word of the Lord. Most of us don't hear controversial sermons at church. If we did, we may have to find another church!

I don't think that I will be able to handle hearing this guy give speeches for four years. Thank you Obama...I am now finding some passion for the John McCain campaign.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

John McCain's most recent comments about Mitt's future role in the GOP, taken from Foxnews.com.

Exeter, NH — Sen. John McCain said Wednesday that former rival Mitt Romney has a “big role to play” in the future of the GOP and would be in contention for “a lot of different roles in a Republican administration.”

“I was very gratified by Governor Romney’s gracious endorsement, asking his delegates to support me, the way he received me after he dropped out of the race,” McCain said aboard his bus today in the Granite State–where McCain dealt Romney a major blow. “There is nothing but goodwill between myself and Governor Romney….(he) has a big role to play in our party. Millions of Republicans voted for him so obviously I think he would be in consideration for a lot of different roles in a Republican administration.”

McCain and Romney fought a bruising, heated battle during the early primaries but the presumptive GOP nominee said that is water under the bridge. “The lesson in politics is you go forward, not back…(once the primary is over) we share the same principles and values of conservative Republicans,” McCain said.

McCain added that he does not believe it is important to select a running mate he considers to be a close friend.

“I don’t think you have to be close friends as much as you have to share the principles, the values, the goals…but also the priorities,” McCain said. “I don’t think you have to have a personal relationship but you have to have a comfortable, professional relationship.”The questions were prompted by Romney’s comments during a Fox News interview last night that he would be “honored” to be picked as McCain’s VP.

I, for one, think Romney would make an excellent choice, a good balance to McCain.

Romney has solid conservative credentials. His experience as Governor and in the private sector would help McCain and be a strong ticket. In any case, the national exposure as a VP candidate would be a significant boost to Romney for any future contests.

Saturday, March 1, 2008

As a strong supporter of Mitt Romney I find it ironic, even twisted, that many Americans are now bemoaning a lack of executive experience in the three presidential finalists (Obama, Clinton, and McCain).

Look at these two recent headlines from USA Today (from Feb 25 and 26, 08 respectively):

"Ready on Day One?: None of The Top Three Contenders Have Ever Run a Government or a Business"

And then this one:

"Obama Now Seen as Most Electable: Only 46% Say He Has Needed Experience"

The first article goes on to state:

"Each [candidate] has scored impressive achievements in life, but none has a run a city or state, a small business or large corporation--or any bureacracy larger than their Senate staffs or campaign teams."

Now folks, honestly, that so many Americans are complaining about this at such a late hour of the election makes me ill--and majorly peeved.

Although I feel sorry for America because we will be stuck with an inexperienced president, I absolutely cannot feel sorry for those of you who voice these complaints and yet failed to vote for Mitt Romney.

I mean seriously, you had the chance to elect Mitt Romney, an ethical man, an intelligent man, an articulate speaker, a financial wizard, one of the world's best executive leaders--and you passed on him. And who did you pass on him for? Candidates with long lists of ethical problems (Clinton, Giuliani, Huckabee). Candidates with dubious intellectual understanding of economic issues (Obama, Huckabee, Thompson, McCain). Candidates who cannot speak articulately (McCain, Thompson, Giuliani). Candidates with zero proven ability to manage and lead complex organizations with multi-million dollar budgets and thousands of employees (Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Thompson).

The fact is, as the anointing hour draws closer, Americans are waking up to the dark realities we face: a brutal economic recession, a government deeply in debt, and a country divided over foreign policy. And if this weren't enough, the GOP is seriously broken, desperately in need of a leader who can unify its warring factions.

To get us through these problems we needed a leader with proven executive experience, solid leadership credentials, high ethical standards, a fix-it mentality, a sharp mind, an articulate speaker, and a touch of financial wizardry.

Folks, we needed Mitt Romney.

But it's too late now. Mitt is out of the race. And who is to blame for that?

When things get tough down the road, and it's obvious our president lacks the experience and skills to handle the problems successfully, I hope that those of you who didn't vote for Mitt Romney will be humble enough to admit that you are partly to blame for the problem.

Rather than whining to others about your case of buyer's remorse, I hope you will spend your energy by helping to get Romney elected in 2012 and 2016. Because when that time arrives, I can guarantee you that we will need Mr. Fixit to clean up the mess that our next Democratic or Republican president is about to cause.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

As many of you know, I am a dentist practicing in the South Jordan, Utah area. I have been helping people achieve oral health now for the past four years and will soon be opening my own office.

It has been my observation that there are two types of patients:

First, there are the patients who come in regularly for their semiannual exams and allow me to solve their problems while they are small and relatively inexpensive. My radiography and training allow me to detect and cure decay before the patient may even notice that there is a problem. By investing in dental care at regular intervals, these patients will spend far less money for their dental care than those who wait for the big problems to develop...which brings me to our second type of patient.

The other patients are those who wait to visit the dentist only when they themselves notice that they have a problem. In other words, they wait until they have pain, a tissue lesion, or have a hole in a tooth. In almost every case, when the patient themselves can diagnose their own problem, the solution is more expensive (most commonly a root canal and crown).

I think of Romney as a highly trained specialist when it comes to the strength of our nation. He has detected an assault on our families. He has warned us about the competition from foreign nations. He understands that our tax burden must be low and that government spending must be controlled at inflation less one percent. He knows that our military must be strengthened.

Why? Because he has spent his life in the economy. He has spent his life as a religious leader. Romney has also spent his life as a father of five sons. But more than any of these, Romney has spent his life fixing things.

So what kind of "patients" are Americans? Well, while Romney was still in the race, he had a consistent third of the Republican vote...not as good as McCain's thiry-four percent...but impressive nonetheless.

But, it is sad to report than the majority of Americans are the second kind of "patients" (speaking in terms of political choices). It would seem that most Americans did not believe Romney's warnings and would rather wait until they themselves can feel the problems. While there are some who would like to analyze how the Romney campaign could have done this or that differently, I place the responsibility of the election squarely on the shoulders of the voters. I think Romney's message was spot-on.

While I pray that it will not be the case, America may find herself in pain in the not too distant future. Depending on the choices that Americans make in their own families, as well as in the White House, there may come a time that our nation will know for themselves that there are problems to be solved. Unfortunatley, the problems will have grown and have become much more expensive than they would have been if we would have unleashed Romney in '08.

And like the people who wait until they are in pain to see their dentist, there are Americans who will wait until the strength of our nation is on the decline. And then, perhaps, Mitt Romney and conservatism will return when we need them most.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Even with Romney's endorsement today, I am still finding myself uninspired by McCain.

Romney is making the argument that since we are at war, now is not the time to symbolically retreat by electing a democrat.

I reluctantly agree. But as a new business owner, I feel like I will have to brace myself for the next four years no matter who is elected. I am left with the question: Would a President McCain employ conservative policies to keep our economy strong enough that we can afford the war?

I think that we need to finish the war, but in order to do so, America needs to be unfettered by liberal policy. We can't afford a war, entitlements, and universal health care. To try to be all things to all people is the sure way to bankrupt America.

Does John McCain understand this? Is he ready to embrace conservative principles? Obama would cause the war to end by retreating, but McCain may also cause the war to end, not by withdrawing troops but by killing our economy.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

In November we are going to be forced to decide between the lesser of two liberals. With the nomination of McCain, it is clear that Republicans need to fix their nominating process. Here are some thoughts...

1. Iowa and New Hampshire should NOT lead the process. There is no reason – other than history and big egos – that these states should lead us off each season. I hate to say it, but Iowa caucus-goers are not the sharpest tools in the shed. We can do better. New Hampshire voters, on the other hand, are possibly more intellectual, but suffer from an irrational desire for rebellion. We don’t want party outsiders picking our nominee. It just doesn’t make any sense. It's hard to think of any two lead-off states worse than these.

2. New states should be allowed to lead the process each election cycle. This could be easily implemented by scheduling election days in advance and allowing interested states to apply to be in a lottery. The lottery would then determine the matchup between states and dates. One of the stipulations for admittance into the “early state lottery” would be that only registered Republicans can vote in the primary and the registration process would need to have been completed at least 6 months before the date of the primary.

3. Our caucusing should look more like the Democrats'. We had way too many candidates in the race for way too long. It’s healthy for the candidates to undergo a weeding-out process wherein supporters of candidates with less than 10 or 15 percent of the caucus vote are required to either leave or affiliate themselves with another candidate. This would have eliminated the likes of Tancredo, Hunter, and T. Thompson early on, thus allowing us to focus on realistic candidates in debates and future primaries and caucuses.

4. Plan a couple of “frontrunner debates” during the cycle. Agree upon specific criteria beforehand and at key dates during the process facilitate a debate between the TWO frontrunners. This could happen once after 3 or 4 states have voted and again right before a major event like super Tuesday.

5. Let’s agree to a window of time wherein no elected Republican officials are allowed to endorse candidates. This would force politicians to actually do some homework and risk some political capital if they are going to endorse a candidate (instead of just sticking their finger in the wind like the creepy Governor Crist). Perhaps “endorsement silence mode” could kick in two weeks before the first state votes and would end after 50 percent of states have voted. Of course everyone is entitled to free speech, but this could easily be established as a party norm.

6. Reward caucus and convention states with additional delegates. Throughout the primary season it has been evident – with the exception of Iowa – that caucusing produces superior results than primary voting. This should not be a surprise. The average primary voter may not spend more than a few minutes contemplating and making their vote. A caucus-goer, on the other hand, must make a diligent effort and substantial time commitment to their candidate. This results in a more robust and carefully contemplated choice.

So these are some of my ideas that I believe would contribute to a stronger nominee in 2012. The current process is bad, but it can be fixed. A staged primary is much better than a national primary. A national primary would be so expensive and the electorate so ignorant that only rich and famous people would have a chance. It would be a terrible idea.

So let's stick with a staged process, but mix up the order. Above all, let’s allow Republicans and conservatives to determine the nominee. The idea of “open primaries” early in the process is absurd. Also, let’s not be religious bigots. We need to make sure that a person of any faith – as long as he or she is a full-spectrum conservative – can win the Republican nomination.

Who are we?

The Mitt Rockers are David, Matt, Brent, David, and Branden. The Daves and Matt live in Utah. Branden lives in Boston. Brent lives in Minnesota. We each share enthusiasm for Mitt's presidency.
Mitt Rocks combines original thought with the best of the blogosphere. Enjoy!